Scottish Crucible. Round 2.

Round 2. Ding Ding.

The 2017 Scottish Crucible’s second lab was graciously hosted by Stirling University on June 1-2 and it rocked the campus. Literally. There was a blue man. A dinosaur. Drawing. Dancing. Sumptuous vistas. Oh yeah, there was a pretty nice castle too!

It began with this view.

Lab 2 was hosted by the irrepressible and commanding Sara Shinton. Honestly, sometimes the participants needed direction as they learnt the ins and outs of ‘brainstorming.’

(Or, as some of us called it: ‘thought-showering.’) No surprise, the phrase didn’t stick.

The thrust of Lab 2 was collaboration. We were enveloped in a cozy bubble, as Sara rightly put it.

How to work together! How to build lasting research partnerships to influence positive change! How to cut across fields and disciplines! The guest speakers were inspiring.

Being a drug historian, I have some thoughts about the tweet below but I’ll keep them to myself.

Chalk this up to aggressive dancing!

Day 2 included further in-depth training on how to develop and drive collaboration.

To start off with, we needed to draw out our research. No easy task.

However, there were other appearances.

For instance, a creepily self-satisfied Dragon…

An introspective blue dude…

DEFRA

But. But. But.

In my estimation, the most exhausting and rewarding moment of the weekend was…speed collaboration. Think speed dating, on steroids. (I am a drug historian).

The experience was supremely enjoyable. Also: Tiring. Amazing. Harrowing. Enriching. All of these. At the same time.

Minds were spinning.

Ding Ding. Bring on Round 3.

See the previous post on the Lab 1 here.

Or visit the Scottish Crucible here.

**

 

Perpetuating the myths

An excellent post about science and comic books.

The Renaissance Mathematicus

Since the re-emergence of science in Europe in the High Middle Ages down to the present the relationship between science and religion has been a very complex and multifaceted one that cannot be reduced to a simple formula or a handful of clichés. Many of the practitioners, who produced that science, were themselves active servants of their respective churches and many of their colleagues, whilst not clerics, were devoted believers and deeply religious. On they other had there were those within the various church communities, who were deeply suspicious of or even openly hostile to the newly won scientific knowledge that they saw as a threat to their beliefs. Over the centuries positions changed constantly and oft radically and any historian, who wishes to investigate and understand that relationship at any particular time or in any given period needs to tread very carefully and above all not to approach their…

View original post 1,496 more words